7th Circuit Clears Way for Nestle Dog Treat Class Action in Missouri

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Last week, an injunction provision in a nationwide class action settlement agreement was stayed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which allows another class action to proceed against Nestle Purina PetCare Co. and Waggin’ Train LLC in the state of Missouri.

An Illinois federal judge included a provision that prohibits class members from pursuing litigation against Nestle and Waggin’ Train over allegations that the companies sold harmful dog treats as a part of a proposed class action settlement for a nationwide class of consumers. This halted any statewide litigation, including a state class action lawsuit in Missouri.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit reversed the injunction. The panel pointed out in their order that the federal judge had failed to explain why the injunction was necessary.

“When we sought to learn the district court’s view of this subject, we were stymied,” the order stated. “The district judge has not explained why he entered the injunction. There are some hints, but nothing more,” and, “[t]hat won’t do.”

“Rule 65(d)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that every order issuing an injunction must ‘state the reasons why it issued,’” they concluded.

Class representatives from Missouri had protested the injunction. Nestle and Waggin’ Train argued it was necessary to aid the district court’s jurisdiction. Nestle also argued that the Missouri class action would compromise the settlement of the nationwide class action.

Although Nestle and Waggin’ Trains’ arguments could have worked, the appellate court pointed out in its order that this reasoning came from the magistrate judge who assisted in negotiations, not from the district court judge. The order from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted that even if the district court judge had included these points in the settlement, it would not satisfy the rules of civil procedure, noting that parallel federal and state class actions are common.

The Seventh Circuit also wrote that an injunction against the Missouri class action was unnecessary because that class action lawsuit does not seek to end the nationwide class action.

“The parties argue that closing down the Missouri case would be prudent, beneficial, helpful, and so on; the unstated premise is that [the Anti-Injunction Act] allows whatever a federal court thinks is good litigation management,” wrote the Seventh Circuit. “But that’s not what ‘necessary’ means,” the judges continued.

The Seventh Circuit cited a Supreme Court case that noted that the Ant-Injunction Act allows for state courts to remain free from interference by federal courts and that “any doubts as to the propriety of a federal injunction against state court proceedings should be resolved in favor of permitting the state courts to proceed.”

The plaintiffs in the federal class action are represented for settlement purposes by Thomas Soule of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLP and Stuart Davidson, Amanda Frame, Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Susan Alexander and Andrew Love of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Curts is represented by Stephen J. Moore.

The Nationwide Nestle Dog Treat Class Action Lawsuit is Dennis Adkins et al. v. Nestle Purina PetCare Co. et al., Case No. 14-3436, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

UPDATE: On Aug. 20, 2015, viewers began reporting they were receiving checks in the mail from the Missouri dog treat class action settlement. One viewer reported receiving a check for more than $350. Congratulations to all of our viewers who submitted valid claims and got PAID!